Making sense of the Book of Acts - Conclusion

The Book of Acts ends rather abruptly, doesn't it?  From its close alone, it's evident that the Book of Acts is not primarily a history of "the birth and growth of the Church," nor even a complete record of "the acts of the apostles."* Wouldn't we like to know what happened to the twelve apostles after the raising up of Paul?  And wouldn't we like to know how Paul fared during the "two whole years at his own expense" (Acts 28:30) and after? What reading an inspired record of his last days and his trial and execution would have made! But God didn't cause Luke to write the Book of Acts in order to satisfy our curiosity. Rather, the book is intended to be the story of Israel's fall and of how salvation was sent to the Gentiles. This having been accomplished, and Israel having rejected Christ at Rome as she had done at Jerusalem and all the way between, the book ends.

*Interestingly, the title "Acts of the Apostles" (Greek Πράξεις ἀποστόλων Praxeis Apostolon) was not part of the original text. It was first used by Irenaeus at the end of the 2nd century.

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 9

Beginning with the preaching of John the Baptist (whose message was for Israel - Lk 1:16; 80; Acts 13:24), and during the several years of Christ's earthly ministry with His twelve apostles (which was for Israel - Matt 10:5-7; 15:24; Rom 15:8), and for seven or eight years after Pentecost, the gospel was not sent to Gentiles.

Jesus of Nazareth was a man attested by God with mighty works and wonders and signs in the midst of Israel (Acts 2:22). Jesus responded to the appeals of two Gentiles of "great faith" only, by healing their loved ones (Matt 8:1-12; 15:20-28; Lk 7:1-10; Mk 7:27-37).

In the Book of Acts the Lord is carrying out His program declared in Mark 7:27 and Matthew 8:12. Notice that to the Greek woman our Savior said: "Let the children be fed first..." (Mk 7:27). To the Roman man He said, "...the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness" (Matt 8:12). During Acts, "the children" were being "fed first." In Acts 3:26 Peter said to Israel, "to you first." In Acts 13:46 Paul said to Israel "it was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you." In fulfillment of our Lord's words in Matthew 8:12, the judgment of "the outer darkness" is announced by Paul in Acts 28:25-28 (about 62 A.D.) and Romans 11:6-25, and came about with the destruction of Jerusalem (about 70 A.D.).

Why was it necessary that the word should be sent to Israel first?  The answer is, the Israelites were His people, and salvation was to go to all the world through them (Lk 23:3-4; Jn 4:22; Acts 1:8; 3:16-18).  (Remember, people had to become Jews — proselytes — in order to approach God at that time.)  BUT NOW, because of their unbelief, salvation is temporarily going to all the world apart from them (Isa 49; Zech 8:13,22,23; Rom 11:25-28).

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 8

After the rulers rejected Him in Matthew 16:20-21, Jesus specifically instructed His apostles not to testify that He was Messiah. If Jesus did not rescind this order, then His apostles willfully disobeyed Him. But Jesus Christ did rescind it in His prayer on the cross — "And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do...” (Lk 23:34). God began anew with Israel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:36; 3:14-26).

From Acts 2:36 through Acts 7, the twelve disciples and their associates testified to Israel that Jesus was Christ (Messiah). Paul and his associates continued in the synagogues of Israel to testify that Jesus was Christ (Messiah) (Acts 9:16-28; 17:3; 18:5; 28:19-28).

There are four classes of Jews mentioned in the first eleven chapters of Acts: "Hebrew Jews," "Grecians (Greek Jews)," "Strangers or visiting Jews from Rome" (Acts 2:10), and "Proselytes." The Grecians of Acts 6:1, Acts 9:29, and Acts 11:20 should not be confused with the Greeks (Gentiles) of Acts 2:28, Acts 14:1, Acts 16:1-3, Acts 17:4, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:17, Acts 19:10, Acts 19:17, and Acts 20:21. There is also a difference between many of the religious Greeks and the idolatrous Gentiles. Many of the Greeks were interested in the Jews' religion (Acts 13:43; 13:48;14:1; 17:4).

The "far off" people of Acts 2:39 were Israelites, not Gentiles (Acts 10:28; Dan 9:7). In the early chapters of Acts, not one word was spoken to Gentiles. Peter and his associates were sent by Christ to Israel only, with a kingdom message and kingdom signs (Matt 10:5-7).  To them the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given (Matt 16:19).  No one today has right to proclaim the messages, religious programs, and divine orders of those chapters to the Church today — except preaching Christ.

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 7

According to Acts 2:29-33, Peter declared that David prophesied that Christ would be raised from the dead to take David's throne.  All the prophets, beginning with Moses and Samuel, foretold Israel's kingdom days (Acts 3:21-24).  In Acts 3:19-21, Peter declared that God would send Christ from heaven to establish these kingdom days if Israel would repent.  What a contrast between these messages and the fact concerning Christ and the members of His Body seated in the heavenlies (Eph 1:19-22; 2:5).  Christ, on David's throne, as Israel's King, foretold by the prophets, is quite a different relationship and ministry than Christ far above in the heavenlies, Head of the Church, which is His Body.  It is one thing for a believer to be raised up where Christ is in the heavenlies (Eph 2:6).  It is quite a different thing for God to send Christ back from heaven to the believers on earth.

During the Book of Acts, Israel was committing the unpardonable sin; sinning against the Holy Spirit, or blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:31-32).  Christ said to Israel, "...every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Israel sinned against the Son of man.  They put Him to death.  But on the cross He cried, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk 23:34). God was willing (Acts 3:14-18).  He sent the Holy Spirit to witness that He had raised Christ from the dead, exalted Him to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance and remission of sins to Israel (Acts 5:29-32).  Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit and saw the Son of man standing in heaven.  He accused them of killing the Son of man and of resisting the Holy Spirit.  They committed the unpardonable sin.  Paul went to Israel's synagogues to testify that Jesus was the Messiah.  He was a watchman for the house of Israel (Ezk 3:16-20).  Israel blasphemed (Acts 13:45; 18:6).  They committed the unpardonable sin.  Paul turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13:45; 18:6; 28:28).

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 6

During the first half of Acts, Peter, the minister to the circumcision, is mentioned 67 times.  In the last half, Peter is never mentioned after Acts 15:13 and Paul (as Paul) is mentioned 132 time, beginning with Acts 13:9.  In all the messages of Paul, from Acts 9:14 to 2 Timothy 4:22, he uses the first person pronoun in speaking of himself more than 1200 times.  Acts closes in the middle of Paul's Epistles.  Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and 2 Timothy were all written after Acts closes.

There is not a single word in the first nine chapters of Acts that "Peter and the eleven" preached justification by faith alone, the gospel of the grace of God, the ministry of reconciliation; or that they urged the Jews, to whom they preached, to forsake Moses, give up circumcision, or to abandon their hope of the Messianic kingdom.  Of course there was the element of grace in their messages of repentance and restitution, but they preached to Israel only the gospel of the earthly kingdom and of circumcision (Gal 2:7-9).  They preached to Cornelius the word that God sent to Israel (Acts 10:34-43).  Paul, on the other hand, preached to Gentiles the gospel for the uncircumcision.  This was not preached to Israel.  God preached the gospel (good news) to Abram in uncircumcision, when he was 75 years old.  Abram was circumcised when he was 99 years old (Gen 17:3-20).  From that day until when Cornelius was saved, all blessings were on the grounds of circumcision.

All of this is further evidence that the Book of Acts is principally the record of the fall of Israel, not "the story of early-day Christianity."

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 5

So many seeming Scriptural paradoxes can be solved by simply observing progressive revelation.  Not doing so is the most frequent error I see. 

For example, many people seem to forget that when Jesus Christ walked the earth, people were still under the Law.  Because of this, they try to apply such verses as "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt 6:14-15) directly to themselves.  How do they reconcile this with Ephesians 2:8-9?  Progressive revelation must be taken into account, not only in the Gospels but in the Book of Acts as well.

The Law, of course, was given to show us what sin is, that we are sinful and can't keep from sinning, and that we therefore need a Savior (Rom 3:19-20; 7:7, 12; Gal 3:24; 1 Tim 1:9).  In a word, the Law condemns us (Rom 4:15; 5:13; 7:14; Gal 3:10; Jas 2:10).

Galatians 4:4, Matthew 23:1-3 and 28:20 tell us that our Lord Himself was born under the law of Moses and taught His disciples complete subjection to it.  Therefore, in obedience to His instructions, the twelve taught their hearers subjection to Moses' law and set the example themselves.

In the early chapters of Acts we see that the believers practically lived in the temple.  In Acts 2:46 we find them "attending the temple together."  See also Acts 3:1, 3, 8, 11; 5:20-21, 25, 42.  In the last of these verse we read that "every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus."

As pointed out before, at the council at Jerusalem it was agreed only that the Gentile believers were not to be subjected to the law of Moses.  The status of the Jews was not even discussed.  They had, until that very time, remained under the law, and they assumed that they were to continue to do so.  God had not yet given the twelve any revelation delivering believing Jews from the law (Acts 15:1, 19, 21; Gal 2:3, 7, 9).

In Acts 21:20-25, we are specifically informed that the Jews which believed remained "zealous for the law."

We are also told in Acts 22:12 that Ananias, the person who baptized Paul, was "a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there."

Not until the Apostle Paul comes on the scene do we hear any such declaration as, "BUT NOW the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law" (Rom 3:21), or "through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:38-39).

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 4

Aside for the statement "Peter, standing with the eleven" in Acts 2:14, only three of the apostles are mentioned by name from the day of Pentecost through the end of the Book of Acts (except ten words concerning the death of James, the brother of John, in Acts 12:2).  The three apostles mentioned are Peter, John and James.  In Galatians 2:7-9 these three are referred to as "pillars."  After the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-19), there is only one short reference made to one of these men — James — when Paul visited Jerusalem (Acts 21:18-28).

If we study the ministry of Peter, James and John in Acts in light of Galatians 2:7-9, we will see that they agreed to go to the circumcision and Paul to the uncircumcision.  Why?  These verses seem pretty clear.

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal 2:7-9).

All of the apostles mentioned in Acts proclaimed that "the Christ is Jesus" and that He had died and risen again, but the earthly kingdom was also being offered to Israel during this time — commonly called the "transitional period" (Acts 3:17-21).  And remember, too, at the council at Jerusalem it was agreed only that the Gentile believers were not to be subjected to the law of Moses. The status of the Jews was not even discussed.  It is evident that they had remained under the law up to that point, and it seems that they assumed they were to continue to do so.  God had not yet given the twelve apostles any revelation delivering believing Jews from the law.  See also later in Acts 21:20 that the Jews which believed remained "zealous of the law."

The ministry of the twelve apostles in Acts was, in fact, a ministry of confirmation, witnessed by signs and miracles (Heb 2:2-4). The messages they proclaimed were concerning events foretold by Israel's prophets (Acts 1:16-20; 2:16, 25, 30-31; 3:22-24; 4:11, 25-26; 7:1-50; 8:32-33; 10:43; 15:13-18). I believe that all of this should be studied in light of Colossians 1:24-28 and Ephesians 3:6-9 where Paul plainly says that "the mystery hidden for ages and generations" which he preached — the strange blessing of Gentiles in the Body of Christ — was unknown to Israel's prophets.  (See also Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8 regarding "my gospel.") 

One last note:  Wouldn't it make sense to use Acts 15:19-20, and Acts 21:18-25, and Galatians 2:3, 7-9 as the key to understanding James' Epistle "to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion" as well?

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 3

One thousand years before Christ came to earth, the Holy Spirit prophesied that a successor would be chosen to take the place of Judas, who would lose his apostleship (Acts 1:16-30, cf. Ps 69:25; 109:6-8). That successor had to be a fellow-companion of the eleven apostles and Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 1:21-22).  These requirements made Saul of Tarsus ineligible to succeed Judas, which disproves the claim of some that Paul succeeded Judas as one of the twelve.

Although the resurrected Christ gave his commission to the eleven, He required twelve men for the ministry and message to all the "men of Israel," on the day of Pentecost (Matt 19:28; 28:19-20; Mk 16:14; Lk 22:30; Acts 1:8; 2:22).  To me, the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon them immediately afterwards, is proof of God's approval of the selection of Matthias.

Notice also that at Pentecost, after the Holy Spirit was poured out, the people obeyed the Sermon on the Mount as well as other commands referred to in Matthew 19:20-28 (cf. Mk 10:21; Lk 12:33; 18:22; Ezk 36:27).  They sold their assets and turned the proceeds over for the common good.

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need (Acts 2:44-45).

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need (Acts 4:32-35). 

The twelve apostles also obeyed Matthew 10:9-10, carrying "no silver and gold" (Acts 3:6, cf. Matt 19:27-28).  Certainly this was a foretaste of the earthly kingdom of Christ (Heb 6:5), the "times of refreshing" referred to in Acts 3:19-21.  This is not, however, the order for the Church — the Body of Christ — today.*


*See "Sell Everything" posted September 25, 2011.

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 2

The last words of Luke's Gospel concerning the twelve apostles are:  "And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God" (Lk 24:52-53).  In Acts 5:42 it is recorded concerning them that "every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus."  Acts 8:1 tells us that when a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem and many were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, the apostles remained in Jerusalem.

It is also interesting to note that Jerusalem is mentioned 60 times in Acts from Acts 1:4 to Acts 28:17, and that the temple is mentioned 24 times in Acts.  Jerusalem continued to be the headquarters for the twelve apostles throughout the Book of Acts, and so far as the Acts record is concerned, not one of them preached the gospel outside of Israel's land.

Despite the judgment of Christ, pronounced against the temple and Jerusalem (Matt 23:31-39), Israel never received greater favor from Rome than they did during the period covered by the Book of Acts.  During this time the temple continued to stand and both believing and unbelieving Jews had access to it.

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 1

Our small group Bible study has been going through the Book of Acts.  We're nearing the end now, and there are several observations I would like to make.  It seems to me that if there was a better understanding of this book, there wouldn't be so much confusion in the Church today.


The Book of Acts was written by Luke, the beloved physician.*  He must have joined Paul when he received the call to Macedonia because Luke uses "we" for the first time in Acts 16:10.  Luke was sailing to Rome with Paul when the ship broke apart and the passengers and crew reached land on pieces of broken vessel (Acts 27:39-44 through Acts 28:1-2).  Among the last written words of Paul are these: "Luke alone is with me" (2 Tim 4:11).  This gives us some idea of the unwavering faith and fortitude of this beloved companion of Paul.


*"Luke, the 'beloved physican' (Col 4:14), close friend and companion of Paul, was probably the only Gentile author of any part of the New Testament. We know nothing about his early life or conversion except that he was not an eyewitness of the life of Jesus Christ (Lk 1:2).  Though a physician by profession, he was primarily an evangelist, writing his gospel and the book of Acts and accompanying Paul in missionary work.  He was with Paul at the time of the apostle's martyrdom (2 Tim 4:11), but of his later life we have no certain facts." (Ryrie)

Making sense of the Book of Acts - introduction

"I doubt whether the peculiar importance of this Book of the Acts of the Apostles has ever been exhibited or felt as fully as it might have been...A careful consideration leads us to think of the Acts of the Apostles as the key-stone of the arch of the New Testament..." (Howson)

"Our present generation of Bible students would do well to heed these words [of Howson above] and engage in a serious and prayerful re-study of the Book of Acts, for a correct interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles is essential to a clear understanding of God's eternal purpose and of His message and program for the present dispensation, and it is certainly a pre-requisite to an appreciation of the exalted truths of the Pauline epistles." (Stam)

"Nearly all writers on Acts have assumed, without the slightest foundation, that it is the record of the birth and growth of the Church...that in Acts we find the doctrine and practice of the Church in its earliest and purest form; that it is a spiritual story book containing inspiring examples of what we might do if we but possessed the faith of the first century believers...Nevertheless, in the light of the written Word of God this view of Acts is erroneous — not merely in certain details, but fundamentally and essentially so — and accounts largely for the confusion that has gripped the Church in our day." (Stam)

"In a word, if 'To the Jew first' is characteristic of the Acts of the Apostles as a whole, 'To the Jew only' is plainly stamped upon every part of these early chapters, described by theologians as the 'Hebraic section' of the book. The fact is clear as light. And if any are prepared to account for it by Jewish prejudice and ignorance, they may at once throw down this volume, for it is here assumed that the apostles of the Lord, speaking and acting in the memorable days of Pentecostal power, were Divinely guided in their work and testimony." (Anderson)

"Perhaps the best way to see at a glance the value and significance of this book of the New Testament, would be to image the New Testament without the Acts of the Apostles. What a gulf would then be opened between the Gospels and the Epistles!...What discrepancies, what oppositions would be found between the earlier books and the later!" (Howson)

"Suppose again the Epistles were there, but the Acts of the Apostles left out, how startling would appear the heading 'To the Romans,' which would confront us on turning from the study of the Evangelists! How could we account for the transition involved? How could we explain the great thesis of the Epistles, that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile ...? The earlier Scriptures will be searched in vain for teaching such as this. Not the Old Testament merely but even the Gospels themselves are seemingly separated from the Epistles by a gulf. To bridge over the that gulf is the Divine purpose for which the Acts of the Apostles has been given to the Church. The earlier portion of the book is the completion of and sequel to the Gospels; its concluding narrative is introductory to the great revelation of Christianity." (Anderson)

See also: http://tis-justme.blogspot.com/2011/01/acts-rough-overview.html

WWJD (What would Jesus do?)

We often hear that a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, and that it doesn't really matter what you believe as long as you are following Him. There are few things to keep in mind regarding our Lord Jesus' life here on earth, though.

When He was eight days old He was circumcised (Lk 2:21).

He was born UNDER THE LAW (Gal 4:4) and came to fulfill the law (Matt 5:17-18).

He recognized the authority of those who were in the LAW SEAT while here on the earth (Matt 23:1-3).

When He was thirty years old, AS HIS CUSTOM WAS, He attended the Jewish ‘LAW’ services in the Jewish synagogue on the SEVENTH DAY JEWISH SABBATH (Lk 4:16).

In Luke 12:33 He said, "Sell your possessions, and give to the needy." (For more on this, see Sell Everything.)

In Matthew 10:8 He said, "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons."

In Luke 6:30 the He said: "Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back."

He said, in Matthew 6:17, "But when you fast, anoint your head and WASH your face." Then in Hebrews 9:10 we are told that the WASHINGS were imposed on the Jews until THE TIME OF THE NEW ORDER.


In 1 Corinthians 11:1, however, we are told to be imitators of Paul as he followed Christ. (See also Phil 3:17). Christ was speaking in Paul (2 Cor 13:3). Members of the Body of Christ today are not in the will of God in following Jesus of Nazareth in much that He did and said while on earth. In fact, they cannot intelligently follow Jesus Christ unless they follow the truth revealed by Christ to and through Paul.

Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sin?

Why do you suppose Peter told the people they had to "Repent and be baptized" for the forgiveness of their sin in Acts 2:37-41?  Does this mean we must be baptized to be saved?  I placed my faith in Christ when I was 6 years old but wasn't baptized until I was 11.  Was I saved at age 6 or 11?  What about those who are never baptized; are they saved?  Isn't all this faith plus works?   

Well yes it is.  And people do all sorts of things to make these verses fit with what Paul tells us later on (Rom 3:21-28, etc.).  Things like, "Repentance is turning from sin and baptism is turning toward the church, meaning that you're publicly identifying with the church when you're baptized."  It is further explained that "conversion is not a feeling" and that "it isn't faith alone plus whatever you feel like doing.  You must act like you've been converted, and this includes being publicly identified with the church."

I guess I can't really blame them since Peter is preaching faith plus works.  I do blame them, however, for not noting to whom he was speaking (Jews!) or the progression of Scripture.  For example, look at the following passages:

In the Gospels we read that John proclaimed "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" so that Jesus Christ might be revealed to Israel.  And don't forget, Israel was still under the law at this time (Matt 5:18-20; 7:12; 8:4; 19:17; 23:2-3; Mk 1:44; Lk 2:22; 5:14; Gal 4:4), which explains the faith plus works he preached.**

John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4).

And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.  Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough places shall become level ways, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God’” (Lk 3:2-6).

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel” (Jn 1:29-31).

Before his coming, John had proclaimed a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel (Acts 13:24).

Peter continued to preach to Israel the kingdom at hand and a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:36-41; 3:19-21).

“...Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls (Acts 2:36-41).

In order to correctly interpret the book of Acts, we must remember that it is a transitional book, starting with "to the Jews only" in the beginning chapters and closing with "to the Gentiles and the Jews."  As one author well said, "During the years covered by the first nine chapters of Acts, God's order was 'to the Jews first not to the Gentiles.' Beginning with Acts 13:46 God's order was 'to the Jews first and also to the Gentiles,' until the close of Acts.' Since the judgment of God, recorded in Acts 28:25-28, God's order has been 'to the Gentiles and also to the Jews.'"  Also concerning the Book of Acts, Sir Robert Anderson says this in his book Silence of God: “My contention is that the Acts, as a whole is the record of a temporary and transitional dispensation in which blessing was again offered to the Jew and again rejected.” “The right understanding of the Acts of the Apostles . . . a book which is primarily the record, not as commonly supposed, of the founding of the Christian Church, but of the apostasy of the favoured nation.”

Keeping this in mind, let's look again at Acts 2:38.  Scripture tells us that John proclaimed "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" to Israel.  The only difference between Peter's proposition to Israel in Acts 2:38 and John's is one of historical development; the Holy Spirit had come so Peter could add, "and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The first part of Acts, then, doesn't present Christianity at all.  It presents Judaism!  No revelation had yet been given that salvation was to be by grace through faith alone.**  In fact, we will not clearly see the "gospel of the grace of God" until Paul comes on the scene (Rom 3:21-28; Eph 2:11-22).

This is why there is such a huge difference between Peter at Pentecost, demanding repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, and Paul later proclaiming Christ's righteousness for the remission of sins (Rom 3:21-28).


**"Faith will most assuredly approach God in God’s way at any time, and to seek to gain acceptance with Him in any other way would, of course, be unbelief and self-will. Thus, while works never did or could save as such, they did once save as expressions of faith…..Does this mean that works will be efficacious in themselves? No! They will avail only as the expression and evidence of faith..."

Progressive revelation

"All Scripture is God-breathed. The inspired messages in the Bible were given on the installment plan. God revealed Divine truth to Moses that He had never made known to Abraham, Noah, Seth, Abel and Adam. God revealed truth to the twelve apostles that He had never made known to Moses or to any of His holy prophets. The Lord Jesus revealed truth to the Apostle Paul that no prophet or apostle had ever known." 

O'Hair 

INTERESTING QUESTIONS

I'm told that a new game show — The American Bible Challenge — is coming soon to the Game Show Network.  So getting into the game show spirit, can you answer the following Bible questions?


1. Why is it, that in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John we have the record of only two individual Gentiles to whom Christ ministered, a Roman man in the land of the Jews (Lk 7:1-11), and a Greek woman outside the land of the Jews (Matt 15:21-27; Mk 7:24-29)?

2. What did Christ mean when He said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt 15:24)?

3. If the twelve apostles were to disciple all nations (Matt 28:16-20), why did they agree to go to the Jews years after they received Christ's orders (Gal 2:7-9)?

4. Why was it unlawful for Peter to associate with or visit Gentiles seven or eight years after Christ gave them “the great commission” (Acts 10:28)?

5. Why don't believers today obey the command of Jesus Christ in Luke 12:33 "sell your possessions, and give to the needy"?

6. Luke 9:6 simply says that the twelve disciples went around "preaching the gospel." Verse 2 of this same chapter explains how the Lord had sent them "to proclaim the kingdom of God." They couldn't have been preaching "the word of the cross," as Paul later did (1 Cor 1:17-18), because it wasn't until at least two years later that the Lord began to tell them how He must suffer and die (Matt 16:21) and Peter "began to rebuke Him" (Matt 16:22) and none of the twelve even knew what He was talking about (Lk 18:31-34).  So what were they preaching?

7. In the beginning chapters of Acts the believers sold their houses and lots and gave the money to the apostles (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35). Is this God's will for us today, too?

8. What did Jesus Christ mean by His command of Matthew 23:1-3: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice."? What does it mean that God's Son was born under the law (Gal 4:4)?

9. Why was it that from the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry until Peter preached to Cornelius, about eleven years later, no man was baptized who had not first been circumcised?

10. Why, on the day of Pentecost, did Peter preach to Jews, "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), whereas in his message to Cornelius Peter said, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have (Acts 10:44-47)? Was water baptism a requirement for Holy Spirit baptism on the day of Pentecost?

11. In Acts 3:19-21 Peter told the Jews if they would repent, God would send Jesus Christ back from heaven. Is this also God's message to us today?

12. In Acts 5:29-32, Peter declared that God had exalted Christ "at His right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." Why didn't he say "to give repentance to Israel and Gentiles"?

13. In Acts 13:23 Paul was speaking to the Jews concerning King David, and said, "Of this man's offspring God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised." Why didn't Paul say that God had brought to the Gentiles a Savior, too?

14. In Colossians 4:3-4 Paul says, "At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison—that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak." What is "the mystery of Christ"?

15. Except for Peter's one message to the household of Cornelius, did any of the twelve apostles preach to Gentiles in the Book of Acts? Why did the eleven apostles condemn Peter for preaching to Cornelius (Acts 11:1-7)?

Ananias and Sapphira

Our small group bible study is currently making its way through the Book of Acts.  We meet every other week and look at one chapter per meeting.  A few weeks ago we studied chapter 5.  It was interesting to see all the different views on what happened to Ananias and Sapphira and what it means for us today.  Here's the passage,

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things (Acts 5:1-11).

and below is what several theologians have to say about it:

"In those early days the Church walked with God in holiness and righteousness. Today, alas, the Church has gotten so far away from God, and there is so much sin and hypocrisy and unreality, that God (I say it reverently) does not think it worth while to deal with people like this, for the Church refuses to listen to His voice."

So the reason God isn’t punishing sin like this anymore is because there is too much of it? That doesn’t make much sense to me. This view is not supported by Scripture in any way that I am aware of, either.

"In our time, those found in dishonesty do not die as did Ananias and Sapphira, but something within them dies. Conscience chokes, character withers, self-respect vanishes, integrity dies."

This theologian doesn't explain why we don't still receive this type of judgment today.  And again, no Scriptural support is given.

"What Ananias did also must be seen in the context of its time. This was a critical juncture for the early church, and such impurity, sin, scandal and satanic infiltration could have corrupted the entire church at its root. The Church has never been harmed or hindered by opposition from without; it has been perpetually harmed and hindered by perils from within. Why don't we see God judge the same way now? In part, because the church has so many 'branches.' Even if the entire body of Christ in the United States was to become corrupt through scandal or sin, there is plenty of strength in other parts of the 'tree.' The Church's administration to-day is not what it was, or there might be many dead men and women at the end of some services."

So because the Church is so big now, judgment like this is no longer needed?  Once again, there is no Scriptural support given.

"Many find this passage shocking, but Luke would certainly disagree with efforts today to explain away hell or God’s punishment.  He insists that outrageous and deliberate rebellion against God will be severely punished.  God is not mocked.  Though this same Luke is known for his stress on God’s forgiveness of repentant sinners, we should not overlook his balancing emphasis on a prudent fear of God’s power to punish when faced with unrepented sin and rebellion.  God will go to any length to save sinners who are willing to return to him (Luke 15).  But those who refuse to admit their sin and ask forgiveness will suffer the consequences of their separation from God."

Are we to look at this portion of Scripture merely as a warning to unbelievers, then? And again, why isn't this still happening today?  Or is he saying that it still is?

"We are stunned in this passage by the suddenness of God’s judgment and seeming lack of pity or remorse on the part of Peter and the others.  Furthermore, there seems to be no opportunity for repentance apart from Peter’s question to Sapphira in verse 8.  Stories like this were quite common in the Old Testament, such as Nadab and Abihu consumed by the illegitimate fire they used (Lev. 10).  Repeatedly in Deuteronomy, God told his people to root out evil from among them (Deut. 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19)."

Yay, Scriptural support!  I find this explanation interesting. Certainly, the believers at this point in progressive revelation were all Jews and still under the Law, as nothing had yet been revealed that they weren't.  So, to point back to OT examples of the same sort of thing seems perfectly justifiable. This theologian doesn't explain any of this, though.  Nor does he say anything about why judgment like this doesn't happen today.  Perhaps he believes it still does?

"In 4:32-35, Luke reiterates the point of emphasis of the summary in 2:41-47.  But this summary also provides an interesting variation to the themes found in chap. 2.  Now, the believers took the proceeds from their sales and laid it at the apostles’ feet (v. 35).  To assume the posture of being at another’s feet is a gesture of submission in the OT (Josh 10:24; 1 Sam 25:24, 41; 2 Sam 22:39; Pss 8:7; 110:1).  Luke also employs this language of being at another’s feet as a symbol of submission (Luke 7:38, 44, 45, 46; 8:35, 41; 10:39; 17:16; 20:43; Acts 2:35; 10:35; 22:3).  So here in v. 35, laying the proceeds at the apostles’ feet is more than just a way of taking care of an administrative detail.  As Luke Johnson has noted: ‘When the believers lay their possessions at the Apostles’ feet, therefore, they were symbolically laying themselves there, in a gesture of submission to the authority of the Twelve’ (Johnson 1977, 202).  In just such an act of submission, Barnabas laid his gift at the apostles’ feet (vv. 36-37).  Not everyone submitted themselves to the authority of the apostles, as the story of Ananias and Sapphira indicates (5:1-11).  This story is linked linguistically to the previous two scenes by the words ‘at the apostles’ feet’ (v. 2) and depicts a negative example of community life.  Ananias and Sapphira sell a piece of property, but they mock the community’s Spirit of unity, and they usurp the authority of the apostles when they lay only a part of the proceeds at their feet.  Peter assumes the role of prophet when he confronts Ananias with the conspiracy (v. 3).  Like Judas, Ananias has fallen prey to Satan (v. 3; ef. Luke 22:3), and like Judas, Ananias will not live to enjoy the material gains of his deceit (v. 5; see 1:17-18).  Although Ananias has not lied verbally, the act of conspiracy itself was a lie to the Holy Spirit (v. 3).  Peter’s remaining questions suggest that Ananias and Sapphira were not required to dispose of their property in this way, but could have retained authority over it (v. 4).  But by taking this duplicitous action, they usurped the authority of the apostles.  The offense was not simply against the community, Peter argues; it was against God.  The problem was not simply a human one; it had serious spiritual dimensions, and as Ananias soon found out, serious repercussions.  Upon hearing Peter’s words, he fell down and died (v. 5).  After the disposal of Ananias and an interval — the narrator tells us — of about three hours (v. 7), Peter confronts Sapphira in what resembles a legal trial.  The story drips rich with irony because the reader has knowledge Sapphira does not possess; the conspiracy is broken.  Unknowingly Sapphira compounds the conspiracy with a verbal lie.  Yes, she tells Peter, they sold the land for such and such a price (v. 8).  Peter’s role as prophet becomes even more active when he predicts that this one who with her husband conspired against the community and God would now suffer the same fate as he (v. 8).  And the final note of irony: Sapphira falls dead at Peter’s feet.  She who had feigned to lay her possessions at the apostles’ feet now gives permanently in death.  This grizzly story fulfills the threat of Peter’s earlier sermon:  ‘everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people’ (3:23).  No wonder that a great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things (v. 11).”

More Scriptural support!  I find this one interesting, too.  Makes sense, except he doesn't explain why and when it all stopped.

"This event was an example — 'a taste' (Hebrews 6:4-5) — of what will happen during the Kingdom when anyone goes against the Divine order (Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). The Law will be written in the hearts of Israel in the Kingdom , so sin will be a very deliberate rebellion against the Spirit — as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira who had received the Spirit in the Kingdom sense (Acts 2:17-18). For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people (Hebrews 8:10; cf Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 10:16) ... This is what the writer of Hebrews was referring to in Hebrews 6:4-6 — For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame (Hebrews 6:4-6). — referring to those who sin after receiving the Spirit as He will be manifested in the Kingdom (and was for a time after Pentecost)."

Again, Scriptural support!  So how long was this "time after Pentecost?"  And why did this kind of judgment stop? It makes sense to me that as Israel continued to reject her Messiah, it stopped.  When that was, exactly, I'm not sure. But notice that after the stoning of Stephen "a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles" (Acts 8:1-3; 11:19), so there was no more laying all that was sold at the apostles feet.  And later we see Paul bringing relief to this church (Rom 15:25-26).  No longer could it be said that "there was not a needy person among them" (Acts 4:34).  It seems that the stoning of Stephen was the last straw, so to speak, for Jews in Jerusalem, the seat of Israel's government, to accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah.  So did it stop there?  Or do we see another example of it in 1 Corinthians 11:28-30?  Perhaps judgment like this gradually stopped like the signs and miracles did???

So what do you think?  In light of the whole of Scripture, which of these views makes the most sense to you?

Pentecostalism - part 3

I know I'm stepping on many toes by saying this but ...

... just because there are many anecdotal stories from developing countries of visions being seen and miracles taking place, doesn't mean they're true — the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

For example, someone who claims to have had an encounter with an alien may tell a vivid story, but this doesn't mean the encounter actually happened. Vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes just seem more plausible, so they are given greater weight. This can also happen to large groups of people through what is called subjective validation.

Can't we trust our own senses, then?  Shouldn't we make them our final source of truth? Of course we shouldn't! We must test everything we hear or see against what Scripture says, just as the noble Bereans did in Acts 17:9-11. But sadly, many people make Scripture say what they want it to say — by pulling verses and passages from here and there or spiritualizing things meant to be taken literally — so that they can directly apply things to us today that shouldn't be. All these errors can be rectified by simply observing progressive revelation literally — Scripture says what it means and means what it says.

The "signs and wonders" under our Lord's earthly ministry and at Pentecost* were signs — of the Messiahship of Christ to Israel (Is 35:4-6; Matt 11:2-5; Joel 2:28-32). When, despite these signs, the nation rejected Him, they ceased.

Some, however, have wrongly concluded that toward the close of this present age we are to expect a revival of these manifestations, but this isn't true.

Paul didn't say in 1 Corinthians 13:8 that the gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge would be done away UNTIL the closing days of this age.  He simply said that they were to be done away (i.e., in this age), and that "faith, hope and love" would "abide."  In fact, Scripture doesn't give even a hint of the manifestation of the sign gifts after the close of the Book of Acts period. Nor is there any indication at all in the Pauline epistles that the Pentecostal signs are to be restored at the close of this age.

Paul does say, however, that AFTER the close of this age of grace, the "lawless one is by the activity of Satan" will appear "with all power and false signs and wonders" (2 Thes 2:9).  Paul confirms what our Lord says in Matthew 24:24 about the same period of time:

For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

During the tribulation period, then, AFTER the members of the Body of Christ have been "caught up" to be with the Lord (1 Thes 4:16-18), the ministers of Satan, from Antichrist down, will come "with all power and false signs and wonders," to deceive, if possible, "even the elect."

Then in the very same passage about Antichrist and his "power and false signs and wonders," Paul warns that "...the mystery of lawlessness is already at work..." (2 Thes 2:1-17).

So what does this say about all the miraculous manifestations we hear so much about these days: tongues, healings, prophecies, visions, witchcraft, spiritism, etc., not to mention false doctrine?  It sure seems to me that these things are not of God, but of Satan.

And yet to some, wondrous manifestations are the end of any argument.  So-and-so must be of God or he/she couldn't work these miracles, right?  But Scripture tell us differently.  A careful study of the latest of Paul's epistles give us the normal course of the Church during this age.  It is Satan's aim is to deceive men and draw them away from the truth of God's glorious purpose and grace.

Paul gives a stern warning regarding this very thing in 1 Timothy 4:1:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.

This is why he tells us to:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm (Eph 6:10-13).

Let me ask you then, is it the Spirit of God or Satan, who attempts to revive the sign gifts that were divinely retired after having fulfilled their purposes?  Satan is not a creepy-looking creature with horns, hooves, a tail and a pitchfork.  Paul warns us that he will operate through "...false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."  He goes on further to say:

And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds (2 Cor 11:13-15).

So don't fall for it!  The amazing stories we keep hearing only beguile us to take our eyes off Him, and cause us to walk by sight, rather than by faith.  Instead ...

... let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith ... (Heb 12:1-3)


*Note, too, that Pentecost was only a partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy (Acts 2:16-21; Joel 2:28-32). There was no blood, nor fire, nor columns of smoke; the sun didn't turn into darkness, nor did the moon turn to blood. Interestingly, the dreams and visions were also lacking.  But all these things will be fulfilled in the future — when Israel's last days resume (Rom 11).

Pentecostalism - part 2

One of the biggest errors Pentecostals make is the way they view the Book of Acts.  Traditionally, they see it as the record of the birth and growth of the Church, the body of Christ, that in it is found the doctrine and practice of the Church in its earliest and purest form, and that it is a spiritual storybook containing inspiring examples of what the Church might do if it but possessed the faith of the first century believers.  For example, here's what one author says:

"The book of Acts is the story of early-day Christianity ... God has given us in the book of Acts a pattern of Christian testimony, missionary effort, world evangelism and building of Christian churches — a pattern which we would do well to follow.  Certainly we can be assured of this: the closer we come to ordering all things according to this holy pattern, the greater blessing will attend our efforts."

There is a big problem with this, though.  The Book of Acts presents a changing program, so how can the Church follow a pattern that keeps changing?  Clearly progressive revelation must be taken into account!

Acts has appropriately been called "the book between", and regarding the structure of Scripture itself, fits perfectly between the four records of our Lord's earthly ministry and Paul's epistles.  Far from being "the story of early-day Christianity," it is from beginning to end the account of the fall of the nation Israel.  Acts explains, step by step, how and why the chosen nation had to be set aside and salvation sent to the Gentiles apart from them. For this reason, it is a record of successive crises: Pentecost, the stoning of Stephen, the conversion of Paul, the council at Jerusalem, etc...

I think Dean Howson explains this rather well:

"Perhaps the best way to see at a glance the value and significance of this book of the New Testament, would be to imagine the New Testament without the Acts of the Apostles. What a gulf would then be opened between the Gospels and the Epistles! ... What discrepancies, what oppositions would be found between the earlier books and the later!"

Or, to quote Sir Robert Anderson:

"Suppose again the Epistles were there, but the Acts of the Apostles left out, how startling would appear the heading 'To the Romans,' which would confront us on turning from the study of the Evangelists! How could we account for the transition involved? How could we explain the great thesis of the Epistles, that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile ...? The earlier Scriptures will be searched in vain for teaching such as this. Not the Old Testament merely but even the Gospels themselves are seemingly separated from the Epistles by a gulf. To bridge over the that gulf is the Divine purpose for which the Acts of the Apostles has been given to the Church. The earlier portion of the book is the completion of and sequel to the Gospels; its concluding narrative is introductory to the great revelation of Christianity."

The first large portion of Acts doesn't present Christianity at all. It presents Judaism. Too often it is forgotten that only Jews are dealt with in the first nine chapters of the book. The only difference between the apostles' position in the four Gospels and in early Acts was that that which was prophesied had been brought about. In fact, the kingdom which these apostles had proclaimed "at hand" during our Lord's earthly ministry, was then offered (Acts 3:19-21).

I believe Sir Robert Anderson was correct when he called the Book of Acts "a book which is primarily the record, not as commonly supposed, of the founding of the Christian Church, but of the apostasy of the favored nation" and that "the popular belief that the Jerusalem Church was Christian" is "fallacious," adding: "In fact it was thoroughly and altogether Jewish." Summing it all up, he says:

"In a word, if "To the Jew first" is characteristic of the Acts of the Apostles as a whole, "To the Jew only" is plainly stamped upon every part of these early chapters, described by theologians as the 'Hebraic section' of the book. The fact is clear as light. And if any are prepared to account for it by Jewish prejudice and ignorance, they may at once throw down this volume, for it is here assumed that the apostles of the Lord, speaking and acting in the memorable days of Pentecostal power, were Divinely guided in their work and testimony."

Therefore, if there is anything the Book of Acts makes perfectly clear, it's the fact that a big change has taken place since Pentecost.  And rather than presenting a pattern for us to follow, explains why the program at that time has passed away and confirms what Paul says in his epistles — that the fulfillment of prophecy has, for the time being anyway, given way to the unfolding of the mystery of "His own purpose and grace" (Acts 28:17-31; Rom 11:1-36; 2 Tim 1:8-11).

Interesting tidbit - 12

Q:  What is progressive revelation?  And should we go according to when the books were actually written?  For example, in the New Testament 1-2 Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts were all written after the Pauline writings except for the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews. John's gospel and epistles as well as the book of Revelation were written after all of these. If we were to credit someone with giving us the final Revelation, it would have to be John, right?


A:  The term "progressive revelation" refers to the idea and teaching that God revealed various aspects of His will and overall plan for humanity over different periods of time.    

Most Christians recognize this. In fact, anyone today who doesn't bring an animal sacrifice with them when they wish to approach God or make a parapet around the roof of their new house or put tassels on the four corners of their cloak (Deut 22) understands that distinctions in practice and knowledge have been progressively revealed and applied throughout history.

But how are we to discern how revelation progressed so that we know how to live today?  Do we go by when the books of the Bible were actually written?  Well we can't go entirely by that.  Some books are history books and, even if written later, may cover an earlier period, while other books speak of prophesy, things that are yet to come.  But clearly Christ chose Paul to bring the Word of God to completion with the revelation of the mystery, which is for us today (Rom 16:25-26; Col 1:24-27).

Unfortunately, many people today fail to observe progressive revelation.  It just isn't taught. Consequently, the fact that people were still under the Law when Christ lived on the earth is often overlooked.  I think this author makes this point rather well:

"In your Bible, after the book of Malchai and before the book of Matthew, no doubt there is a title page, declaring in bold print: "New Testament." And were you asked to turn to the first page of the New Testament, most likely you would turn to Matthew's first chapter. These verses [9:15-16] in Hebrews declare that the book of Matthew has no part in Israel's New Testament prior to chapter 27:50. In Mark the Old Testament runs through chapter 15:41, in Luke it is chapter 23:49 and finally, in John, Old Testament doctrine operates through 19:37. It is at those verse locations where we find the death of the testator, the Lord Jesus Christ; and these verses in Hebrews teach that the New Testament cannot exist before those points. While it would be wrong to disregard the gospels, it is equally wrong to attempt to live according to Israel's Old Testament doctrine. What [isn't being] taught is that every verse in our Bible operates on three levels in that every verse contains historical information, spiritual information and doctrinal information. Anyone at any time may profit from the historical or the spiritual information; but to apply doctrinal information one must be operating within the economy to which the doctrine applies."

Revelation continued to progress even after the death and resurrection of Christ.  I recently blogged about this here when I compared "selling everything" with "providing for one's family."

Yes, all Scripture was given on the installment plan. There is progressive revelation from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. But then and there it ceased.

The good news

There is only one gospel today. It was given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul (Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8), namely that salvation is by faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ on our behalf. This good news is clearly laid out for us in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, and it includes the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It's important to note that Peter didn't preach the same thing as Paul. It’s true that he also preached about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but he preached about it in regards to Israel's earthly kingdom program. When we look at Acts 2:22-36 and 3:13-15, we see that Peter preached about the crucifixion of Christ as the cause of judgment upon the Jews.  We don't find him preaching faith alone at Pentecost.

In fact, Peter told the Jews to repent of killing Jesus Christ. If they (as a nation) would repent, then the times of refreshing from God would come upon the nation Israel. While it’s true that Jesus Christ is the source of the good news for both the Jews and Gentiles under the earthly kingdom program and us today, we certainly can’t say that Peter understood the gospel of "the word of the cross" (1 Cor 1:18) at Pentecost. After all, it wasn't revealed until the Apostle Paul.

Does any of this really make a difference? Well yes, it makes a big difference. If we fail to observe progressive revelation, we may wrongly try to evangelize by preaching the gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) according to Israel's earthly kingdom and not according to what was later revealed to us through Paul. The New Testament clearly teaches both. For example, Ephesians 2:8-9 flatly contradicts the message of faith plus works as the expression of their faith that we find in the gospel accounts (Matt 5:19-20; 12:50; 23:2-3; Mk 11:26; Lk 3:10,12,14; 6:46; 8:21; 10:25-28; 17:10; 18:18-20). If we try to combine the two, we will have a contradictory gospel. So in an attempt to harmonize the Scriptures, most theologians do one of three things:

•Read the kingdom gospel into Paul's gospel
•Read Paul's gospel back into the kingdom gospel
•Observe the progression of Scripture

The first choice is what some Bible teachers have done in an attempt to make sense of the good news of the earthly kingdom and the good news later revealed to us. An example of this is the teaching of Lordship Salvation.

The second choice is what most fundamentalists do. They understand the gospel of salvation as revealed in Paul's epistles. They teach that salvation today is apart from works and totally by faith alone in the finished work of Christ, but then explain away, rationalize, or spiritualize the teachings of the gospels that clearly teach faith plus works.

The third choice is the only choice that allows God's Word to say what it means and mean what it says. Understanding Paul's unique apostleship and message allows the Bible to teach what the literal sense of the words clearly indicate — a message of faith plus works to the Jews in keeping with their earthly prophetic program under the law, and a message of faith alone to everyone today in keeping with the heavenly program revealed to us through Paul.